Re: Fwd: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 09:29 -0500, HECTOR SANTOS wrote:
> Thats fine, and yes Extension are Extensions when mean OPTIONAL. So 
> anything new added to the RFC bis, MUST NOT be rammed it down people's 
> throat using odd readings of RFC 2119. In other words, people are 
> still compliant with SPF and SPF BIS while completely ignoring this 
> ILLEGAL CROSS BOUNDARY scope extension.  I don't want to see 
> statements like you made recently such as:
> 
>         "Put another way, you can't claim compliance with this document
>          unless you apply the SHOULD, but extant implementations are
>          otherwise completely unaffected.
> 
> IOW, you CAN NOT make this cross boundary scope extension a SHOULD for 
> SPFBIS if you truly believe what you stated.   If you feel 
> differently, then this not BIS work but a new protocol and new mandate 
> for a new version of SPF - a different protocol.

I'm not taking sides here, since I am not really familiar with the
technical details anymore, but a implementation is compliant if it meets
all of the MUST directives.  

SHOULD directives have always been strong recommendations, but in no
standards process that I have ever been associated with (and there have
been many) have the *recommendations* in SHOULD directives been required
for compliance. You may not have as broad of interoperability as you
would like without implementing SHOULD directives, but that doesn't mean
you are non-compliant.

Now, I would suggest from plain meaning of the word 'Extension' that no
extension would ever be required for standards compliance. MUST and
SHOULD directives could still be applied within each extension method to
make the *extensions* compliant and inter-operable with each other.  

Cheers,

    - Brian

-- 
Brian G. Peterson
http://braverock.com/brian/
Ph: 773-459-4973
IM: bgpbraverock